I see that both the Nationalist and Labour parties are out to nab ‘liberal’ candidates. Post-referendum the parties which have made it so far as largely conservative movements with a few token moderate exponents, have suddenly twigged on to the fact that perhaps the mood in the country is changing and that a more progressive outlook is now favoured.

So the head-hunters are despatched to land prize liberal candidates who will attract like-minded voters. We read that the Nationalist Party has entrusted a number of so-called ‘liberal’ party officials with identifying and approaching “open-minded, moderate” individuals who could stand for the PN in the next general election – scheduled to take place in 2013.

As the PN quest goes on, first blood goes to the PL who have landed Deborah Schembri as their prize ‘liberal’ candidate. To make up for this, the Nationalist Party has retorted by fielding Cyrus Engerer and Karl Gouder at every conceivable opportunity. The “big beasts” of the party have been hidden away in some dark corner of the PN headquarters where they can do the least damage.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with a political party updating its policies and direction. However, I find that the desperate way in which the parties are going about it, to be rather pathetic.

Whereas previously every PN party spokesman had to be in a strictly conservative mode, now they’re frantically trundling out openly gay candidates in a bid to give the party ‘liberal’ credentials. The PL, on the other hand, trumpets its LGBT section as the ultimate thing in progressive thinking.

Pardon me if I’m not bowled over by the sincerity of it all. Grafting on these liberal appendages is all well and good, but I’d like to know what happens when push comes to shove and decisions have to be made? Will it be the PN of Edwin Vassallo which has the final say, or that epitomised by Karl Gouder? Shouldn’t the electorate be given an indication instead of being fobbed off with this “rainbow party” myth?

• With the divorce issue nearly over – bar the voting and the odd former Prime Minister or two popping out of the woodwork to let us know what we should do – the good netizens of Malta and the armies of armchair critics have to turn to something else to agitate about. The prosecution and sentencing of Star/Button’s killer has also exhausted the virulent mob baying for blood (of the killer’s whole extended family no less). The teething problems of Arriva will undoubtedly keep our keyboard warriors happily occupied during the long hot summer, but the controversy du jour is whether we should have longer school hours and a longer school year.

The discussion – if you can call it that – was kicked off by Roger Murphy, Professor of Education at the University of Nottingham.

Back in 2005, Murphy had contributed to a review of the Matsec Examinations Board process. He has now returned to review developments in the sector. Murphy has concluded that some of the flaws pointed out originally are still in evidence. According to him, students in Malta are still receiving a very low number of hours of schooling because of the short school day and the number of holidays. As a result, pupils do not have enough time to cover the syllabus and have to resort to attending private tuition.

This is borne out by the findings of a European Commission study on private tuition in EU countries, which revealed that in 2008 some 78 per cent of Maltese fourth and fifth formers attended private lessons. Murphy mooted extending school hours and the scholastic year as a possible and partial solution to this problem.

This provoked two main types of reaction. In the first camp, we had the people who agreed wholeheartedly with Murphy, and who would think it an improvement if their children’s school day had to stretch out to the five or six o’clock mark.

In theory this would give children enough time to cover the syllabus, and doing away with the need for private lessons and their costs in terms of both time and money. And it would satisfy those who have an axe to grind about teachers’ supposedly easy job (in reality teaching is as stressful and demanding as it gets).

As that annoying expression goes ‘What’s not to like?’ Apart from the fact that a longer day means that children will be exhausted and not necessarily absorbing knowledge like the little sponges their parents wish they’d be, there’s the feasibility factor to consider.

If we’re going to extend teachers’ working day, they have to be suitably remunerated otherwise they’d be justified in dismissing such a suggestion. Also, are we sure we’d like to turn schools into places where children are ‘parked’ for the longest part of the day with their care being outsourced to others, professional though they may be?

Don’t parents want to spend more time with their children, or are they banking on having so-called ‘quality time’ instead of just more time to spend with their children? Why do I get the feeling many are giving up and opting for the latter?

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.